Kathleen, I went ahead & edited/uploaded said images (see their rendering, if acceptable). I could have done a better job editing (time constraints), but they are ready for validation nonetheless... AKA Londonjackbooks 13:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC) Updated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Cygnis for your help getting me started. I have added a bunch of pages with apparent success.

Question: Is there a way to quote chapter AND VERSE when referencing one of the Bible collections? I am using this form: Bible_(King_James)/Hosea#Chapter_9 which gets me to the chapter. But I haven't found any magic incantations for citing specific verses within the chapters. I see that there is a (verse|chapter=2|verse=1) tag for each verse. I have searched through archives from years past about various revisions to how chapters and verses are tagged. But I haven't found any current "here's how to do it" information about how to cite them. Can you point me in the right direction to discover how to do this? Thanks again. Rcrowley7 (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of modify/validating the page to add the effect of "semi-embedding" the graphic capital; and have experimented to find the minimum {{gap|xem}} which will still work...

However, the question remains: Why does this work? I would have thought the same effect should come about by adding a width specification to the {{block center}}, but this simply does not seem to work!

So credit where it is due to you for figuring this out. I repeat, though: Do you know how it works?

Considering you have been mostly inactive both on here and Wikipedia, you are probably retired. But I though I should ping you anyway: I am pushing forward some work on the rest of Index:Father's_memoirs_of_his_child.djvu, since the whole book hasn't ever been transcribed in whole, elsewhere (only the intro about Blake). Hope you are well, Sadads (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You deleted it a long time ago, per user request, but it seems to be within the scope of the project and I am interested in transcribing it. Hope this will not be a problem. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Was patrolling RC yesterday and spotted your name, so I've been trying to think if there are any new templates that would be interesting to you. The main one I can think of is {{fqm}}, which has proved to be handy for hanging punctuation on the left side of poems. It behaves nicely with {{block center}}, which has had a few mods to allow absolute widths on the /s version as well as the ordinary one. The other new templates that might be useful to you are {{FI}} and {{FIS}} for freeing images. I haven't got my head around these completely yet, but Ineuw and George have been using them in various applications. The other major change in my main interest area is the addition of a score extension to allow the rendering of music scores using either Lilypond or ABC. If you come across any score fragments in your works either drop me a note or tag the page with {{missing score}} and I'll get to it. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, good to hear from you! That is very helpful to know, ta very much for those links. The missing score work sounds like a great idea, as does the extension; I see an enormous benefit in adding music scores here. I'm still trying to remember how to add stuff, but will have a look at developments when I do. Cheers, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 09:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Outside of transcriptions, were we using {{authority control}} back then? I don't think that we were. Linked to this, probably the biggest change is Wikidata: and how we now have our long wished for centralised data place, and can pull metadata, including links, images, etc., which means with some of our creating/updating of author templates we can auto-populate. Much of the power of that automated data is really still to come, and we still haven't been the best denizens there populating our data/knowledge. Toolserver has been replaced by toollabs:, and is a significantly improved and supported set of toys, and it has allowed for an explosion of tools that can allow us to query and detect, and again, some have been designed for us, others sit off wikidata, or are set for other wikis, though can be manipulated for our use (sort of). Elsewhere Bugzilla was replace by Phabricator:, and it is a better tool. — billinghurstsDrewth 21:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Billinghurst. I 'm still dusting off the cobwebs, remembering the tips, tricks and workflows. I noticed authrty cntrl being rolled out at en.wp, I will try to grasp how it is being used here. Having metadata available at WD must be very useful, I will ping you the next time I create an Author page so you show me what is what. I used to imagine something like a single accession form for works, grabbing information from the source (e.g. archive.org) and elsewhere (citation generators), which could be used to populate the templates at Commons and here with [amendable] bibliographic data. So what you are telling seems like good news, and that this is possible or being done. Could I, for example, use the url of a page here to generate a citation at wikipedia? My tools are blunted and rusty, I will poke around to see what documentation and examples are around. Cheers, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that reminds me that we now have the namespace Module: which is for LUA coding, which is more efficient and powerful than template coding, though also more complex. It drives numbers of new templates like AC, and the Wikibase scripts. The usage of the data at WD back to the respective wikis has been slow, as can be expected while data is collated, tools built, confidence gained, people educated. Primarily, it has been building the one to one relationship, though the extension of arbitrary access is now becoming more widely available. I am unaware what has been done in the citation space at enWP. — billinghurstsDrewth 12:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I found a good example for me to try and grasp what is going on with WD and (chillingly named) Authority Control template: I made a new page for Author:Dugald Stewart Walker, and want wikidata to recognise it should (or could) be linked to commons and wikipedia. The template did fill the template with his birth/death dates when I opened the edit window, but getting the sister links to display is what I am not seeing. Ideally I would hope that the en.ws article shows there is a non-empty author page here too, no matter whether that is in the side bar or jostling for advertising space in footer. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 09:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologize for speaking out of turn:) The story behind WD in a nutshell: it is the place to store the data about an author (or a work, or anything). The name and the lifespan are stored locally at wikisource, the rest (including gender, sister links, interwikis, image, viaf and lots of libraries ids, etc) is stored at wikidata. Two templates pull data back from wikidata (if available): "author" itself and "authority control". If the wikidata item for a person exists and has enough information already then one and only one thing is required to make our templates work properly: add the link to wikisource author page into the wikidata item. I have done it for Author:Dugald Stewart Walker, follow the wikidata link on this author's page and you can see the link back to wikisource there. Hope that helps. I leave the story of what to do if there is no wikidata item for an author for billinghurst to tell:) Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC).

Knowledge is knowledge, whomever has it.

To pull the data from WD, there needs to be an association b/w the WD and WS author page, which is done at WD by adding the EN ... Author:(pagename) [and it should show up in a lookup]. SAVE! This enables the header template to know its ID and have a direct relationship, and then pull the pertinent xwiki links, image link, and templated data. If no WD, then generally create one, though suggest a few searches to look for names as other WSes, and xxWP enables a broader data set. If you need scripts to help there I think that they load from m:User:Billinghurst/global.js though there are some local gadgets too. — billinghurstsDrewth 14:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both, that was what I needed to know. While I have your attention, he is something to ponder: here is a title page that attributes the translation to Author:A. E. Johnson, I don't 'know' who that is and was my own search was inconclusive. One of you moved that author page to it's full name (for whatever reason), but I don't know how that conclusion was reached; PG says it is by him and, consequently, so do many other sites. Maybe it is by Alfred Johnson, though I did find another plausible possibility (well, more intriguing) … anyway, my point is not to quibble about this example, but suggest that it is better to be hesitant about attribution. Thank you both again for your time, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

In re Author:A. E. Johnson. It was the default source of data about an author and thus unmentioned -- viaf record. If you have any info that points to another person please post it on the talk page - everyone is happy to see viaf wrong:) at least from time to time. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC).

If you agree, I would like to arrange Frank Richard Stockton's Talk page in this way. I am basically copying the arrangement used by Hesperian at the Henry James author page. I have researched Stockton's works, and have filled in some blanks and removed some redundancies. Feel free to tweak if you have suggestions. I am not necessarily sure if the works listed under "non-fiction" are actually all non-fiction, or if they should go under another section title. It didn't seem appropriate to place them under novels or story collections. I don't know... [add: "Individual stories" section would eventually be organized somehow, whether by date or alphabetically; which do you think?) Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't fault that approach, it is very clear. I've done it other ways too ... a response to different situations; maybe more biblio. info. when things are complicated. I read somewhere that Stockton's stories were rearranged under new titles, using that source was a good idea. The story about the Minor Canon was the first I read by Stockton, the best in that recent anthology. The editor said that reading the Lady and the Tiger is compulsory, or something like that. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make the change. Feel free to make any other changes as you see fit. I created Stockton's author page back in 2012, but I can't remember why. I assumed it had to do with a Coates connection—they are both Philadelphians (at least he was born there)—but that is the only link I have discovered recently. May have just been a random add. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If you don't think that it has, then I won't push to get it validated. — billinghurstsDrewth 06:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

What I saw looked pretty schmick, and I agree with your reasons for having it promoted. My own copy is edited and illustrated by others (old, though probably copyright protected), but I was interested in the volumes you added and see some ways they could be referenced at WP. After reading the Lang intro I found some recent articles in journals that reference this edition too. I noticed that you found the contemporary references and review, but have a inkling there are more links to be found. Do we review the audio-book material as part of the package, or just note that it's available? I'm looking for a diversion and would be happy to do a careful second proofread of this, though I know others who would get it letter perfect. Are there any recurring problems with the text layer, or anything else I should look out for? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 07:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I was just noted the chapters with {{listen}}, though maybe the template could do with some sort of warning about separately sourced, and not part of the validation process. With regard to OCR issues, some 'o' and 'ol' came through as 'd', and there are some 'ä' components 'mäh' where the diereses disappear. I did a search for the unframed word based on page: ns and didn't find any issues, but that could be a search fail. To note that the subsequent book has brälgah though I didn't see that in this version, though I may have missed it. If SF proofreads, then please review, their proofreading lacks thoroughness at times. I think that I got my title formatting consistent, though fresh eyes is good. — billinghurstsDrewth 08:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and the (hanging) indents. I did shrink pages, and look with my mobile, but they always need separate review. Noting that I plan to read (enjoy?) as an epub this week, so that may highlight some issues to me. — billinghurstsDrewth 08:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Quick note that when you get to the poetry (pages 108-109, 123), you can eliminate the non-breaking spaces by using {{fqm}} as an alternate option. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Well done! Did I miss that? Or have you got some good source material? Have you some pointer to some sort of biographical information, and I will see what my genie resources are able to help me uncover. — billinghurstsDrewth 16:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: So, did you find what I found out? And yes, I think it would be a good text for FT :) I guess I could get the nomination underway, unless you were inclined to.CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

That is like two weeks ago, I cannot remember back that far beyond external sources did support. I am pretty sure that I updated things here and commons for both works when I got back from the States. Go ahead and nominate, I am stuck in other things, and with a backlog that would equal the number the rail sleepers between you and me. — billinghurstsDrewth 12:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Apology: it was an oblique way of advertising the short article I cobbled together for ye. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

What is the word or phrase used when significant (relatively speaking) mention is made within a text of a certain person, topic, etc.? What I want to do is make reference in "Works about" sections of author pages to the portions of For Remembrance that are dedicated to individual "soldier poets"—but I'm not sure how to write up the entries. Something like:

*[[For remembrance: soldier poets who have fallen in the war/Chapter 2#Julian Grenfell|Biographical info]] in ''For remembrance: soldier poets who have fallen in the war'' (1920) by A. St. John Adcock.

I am anchoring the portions of text that make mention of each poet. Should I use the word "Reference" or "Passage" in place of "Biographical info" in the entry? or some other word/phrase? or should I not even bother to add such entries?

Also, if I may get your opinion with regard to what I should be linking to within the text. There are numerous cases within this text that I could add links to (note page 12), but I am hesitant. Should I instead only focus on linking to cases related to the soldier-poets and their works? I also hesitate to use redlinks for the reason that future WS adds might use different naming conventions (case, etc.), leaving a link red even though the author/work might otherwise be available. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Notable, at wikipedia.

Notable at wikipedia instead? I add things to 'works about' in the hope it becomes noted there, making the section here redundant (which it often is).

so maybe … Chapter 2#Julian Grenfell|Biographical note

I use links to page numbers, not anchors, and hope someone will ask me why one day.

That verse could link to The Steel Glass, provoking someone to add it. I try to remember to search on titles I create, I'm sure others will enjoy making those links too. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 21:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Removed anchors, will use page numbers. I originally linked to The Steel Glass—along with many other links—but went back and deleted them, as I was becoming exasperated by all the possibilities. For now I will focus my linking efforts on the soldier-poets and their works so I remain motivated to proofread. I may go back later and embellish. Thanks much, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Didn't check the history. I usually link titles, occasionally authors (works, not biography) if strongly supported by context. I don't like distraction when reading, who does? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 23:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

But those are rare. I am otherwise satisfied. Encouragement certainly helps... Just a few pages a day would go a long way to seeing it completed. Couple months maybe. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with Life among the Apaches! I was looking at the progress bar on the main page, and it suggests that the book is mostly green, nearly fully verified. But that's not true. Actually, about 90 pages of 322 have been verified. Shouldn't that bar show the book is about 1/3 verified? --Outlier59 (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The stripe only shows the progress of the pages shown on that page, not the whole work. I feel that is misleading, if it is understood at all by the user. My workaround is to make it true, and proofread or validate the whole thing :) CYGNIS INSIGNIS 01:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Just came across this listing... This is the exact copy of the Chesterton book that I bought, read and sold (almost 2 years ago). Merely a curiosity now since I no longer own it, but do you have any knowledge about whether it is a first edition or not based on the images? and if a book has "presentation copy" stamped (perforated) on the inside, what does that mean? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the third scan of a w:presentation copy I have seen in the last week, along with the Wilde thing you saw and a Carroll novelty that I was proofreading. These copies are worth seeking out for transcription because the printing plates are new, the pages are probably all there, it hasn't been used a lot, and any scribbling is restricted to the first couple of pages. The absence of a printing history could mean that a book is a first edition, I think I have that right, whether it is a genuine presentation copy of that could be determined by examination, comparison and provenance. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 06:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you're back! I have proofread a bit from the work (starting from page 195 if you wish to review). I prepped the remaining pages (not proofread) just to replicate your headers to make the task of proofreading quicker... but since you are back, I'll leave it to you. Welcome back, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't return to the actions of just reverting. We all have and can change, and hopefully we can all be less strident in our approach. Reverting without comment is always less than useful, so when you undo, please add a comment about what and why. How can anyone understand without an explanation. How can the next person understand. These are all our works, and the style guide gives guidance about replicating, so some will replicate; if they are not to replicate knowing why is informative. — billinghurstsDrewth 22:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed ... my edit summary should have requested that you use an edit summary. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Question. Do you know what the date is that we are able to upload/transcribe 1923 works? Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Best that you ask that of someone else. Was there something in particular you were to hoping to bring here? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Couple things on the top of my list: Battle-Retrospect (Yale Series of Younger Poets) by Amos Niven Wilder: He was acquainted with Coates, and is also brother of Thornton Wilder. Second, the updated Poems (Complete edition) of Alice Meynell (also knew Coates) which include her later poems. The first would be easy enough for me to scan; the second, I may have to wait for someone else to eventually upload it. I'll check at the Scriptorium for the date; I thought it was 2018 or 19 but not sure exactly. If you tried to check for me, thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

This was a nice read by Wilder... His later work on theology/theopoetics, etc. is way over my head, though I try to understand it. He was young when he knew Coates, as she died when Wilder was about 32. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how I should handle this. I just came across a versions page you created some time ago which highlights pieces/topics about William Blake. I have uploaded Yeats' work of the same title, and so I believe I should convert the versions page to a disambiguation page, but am not sure how to handle the Blake info. Due to the disambiguation, should I title the Yeats work Ideas of Good and Evil (Yeats)? Thanks for any direction, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

My "sloppy dab" is evidently just wrong. I had the idea that Yeats had also 'edited' Blake's text and used the title that Gilchrist assigned to it. Unravelling the tangle of published Blake texts with versions and dabs was a big job, I attempted to implement a working model as a tentative solution. In this case a plain disambiguation, with (Yeats) and (Blake) appended to the title, seems like a good plan. I started to put this into effect, but now see I need to review the arrangements and incoming links to avoid making work for your good self. This page may provide some clarification as to how unclear the whole business is. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 08:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I will then leave the untangling to your good self as you have more intimate knowledge of William whatshisname and the subtleties of his work than I. Sorry to put more on your plate, Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't really qualify for speedy deletion under G1, since it is not a test edit, obvious nonsense, or vandalism. Rather it is the transcluded table of contents (with header and categorization) from a PD source supported by a DjVu file. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought that was the closest thing, very little meaningful content, thus the elaboration in the reasoning section of the template; I believe there are precedents for similar. If you want to decline it as sdelete, would you mind opening a discussion at the appropriate forum. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 07:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

When sdelete is declined, all that is needed is to have the reason added to the work's associated talk page. I have done this.

If you wish to start a deletion request, you may certainly do so. However, content supported by a suitably uploaded source file at Commons is not likely to be deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was waiting things out for a time, for my first "undo" alerted the vandal which provoked a return to the scene of the crime. I placed notice at the noticeboard; waiting to see how it is handled for future reference. Wondering specifically how each foul edit is remedied. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I got your response. That's great. Why don't we start adding it now? I don't have a copy myself, but other editors might be able to add it. It can be purchased from Penguin Books.68.100.116.118 21:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I tried to find a scan, without success, but discovered a few interesting facts about those volumes (translated from the French version, apparently). A facsimile edition could be scanned and uploaded, but any new material (notes, prefaces and so on) would need to be excluded. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 22:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The penguin version is a reprint. 68.100.116.118 22:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I will keep an eye out for that, it would be nice to have it here. BTW, I noticed you posted a query about The Mysterious Island, there is another version that needs finishing at this scan index. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 22:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

All right. If it will be helpful, there is appears to be a copy at amazon [1]. I will try to finish the scan concerning the Mysterious Island. Perhaps I will create an account here. 68.100.116.118 22:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hoping I haven't stepped on your toes, but I went ahead and added the list of individual essays (public domain) you mentioned you were considering adding to the author page. I should have asked what was meant by "was", but did not. If you feel the addition is an "oppression of essays", being too long, feel free to delete the list. I also added title redirects to the proofread essays (with the exception of "The Benefactor" and "Ghosts" (redlinked; "Ghosts" is included in a different ed. of Essays in Miniature)). Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it is a useful thing to have and saw some other titles I will add sometime. I was trying to ignore a problem I found, unrelated to this list. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 08:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, good... Not sure if you are aware (or interested), but Agnes Repplier: Lady of Letters (1949) is available at IA (not necessarily to upload, but to read/reference). It contains some background information on her essays. I have purchased a hard copy for myself, for I dislike reading online. Apparently, the University of Pennsylvania has (or had) an extensive bibliography compiled by the same author which includes a more comprehensive list of essays/articles. I may follow up on that... I have found "Living in History" to validate. I will search Points of friction further to see if it contains any more essays relating to/mentioning WWI—or 'peace' and 'war' in general. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I am interested in that biography, thanks, and think it worthwhile expanding the article at the other place. As a more recent introduction to Repplier says, "She is one of those almost-forgotten women writers about whom their contemporary commentators so often say, maddeningly, something like, 'Her work is so well known that I hardly need say much about it.'" [2]

I prefer reading hard copy too, but most of what I read is on my antique screen. Books can be be purchased very cheaply, but shipping to my address is a greater cost than the item itself. Reading and referencing scans is hard work, though some are more useful for having an ocr text layer I can search.

She was in favour of the United States joining the conflict in Europe, a recurring theme in her works, so you might find more of her pro patria views on peace and war in essays published during the period before the US sent troops. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 06:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I can see how Repplier and the Coates' would have been friends. Similar outlook, yet different natures. Walt Whitman refers to Repplier and the Coates' in With Walt Whitman in Camden several times, stating in one instance how ["impertinent"] Repplier and her "crowd" would not be able to comprehend Leaves of Grass (being "smart ... merely intellectual"—characteristics to which he was apparently averse); he was surprised at the "friendliness of the Coateses", however (attributing it to their Quaker heritage)... Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Was Florence a Quaker?

Missed the question... Yes. On her mother's side. I can not remember if her father was likewise. I do not believe Florence was practicing. She may have been Episcopalian. She attended the Convent of the Sacred Heart in Paris (Catholic). I can safely say she was Christian. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I begin training for volunteer work at a library. It will be good to get back in the game. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

But you already are a volunteer at a library, and I'm not sure it can spare you. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 10:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Minimal hours, temporary position (for now) for a library "in a pickle". Seasons may change, but I do not intend to be a stranger here. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Working in real world library is a pleasurable thing to do (are you saying that you have done that before?), I'm sure they will also discover that your efforts are invaluable. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Always as a volunteer. I like to say I "played" librarian. Self-taught, untrained. My specialty was taking rooms full of uncatalogued books and turning them into fully automated libraries. First at our church, and then at our children's school (especially sweet position). Some day I would like to pursue a degree in Library Sciences. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been flipping through the bio, especially the section 'The War and After'. The volume you uploaded, 'Counter-Currents', is also discussed along the way. I don't know why the later source thinks her reported age was is in doubt; Stokes did made some impertinent enquiries, though I suppose that there must be people who are born on the first of that month. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 22:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Have to admit that I also found some travel sources at Ancestry.com that report her birth year to be 1858 and one at 1859. But all of the "official" sources—death cert., passport applications (in her handwriting, from what I can tell), etc.,—give 1855. Who knows, she may have misrepresented her age a few times. It has been done. She is buried at St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church in Philadelphia—I believe in a family 'vault'. I may be paying a visit to the city in the future, and will stop by St. John's for pics—if her b/d years are viewable. P.S. I always assumed you had some background in library work, no? Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat unproductive update: "FAMILY VAULT OF THE BROTHERS REPPLIER" is all that is engraved where Agnes is buried at St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church in Phila. No specific names or b/d dates for family members are given. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless you undertook a midnight dig into the family vault, I don't see how you could have been more thorough. Perhaps the entry 1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/Repplier, Agnes is the source of the confusion, the mention of that (the confusion) by Walker, et al. (1988) makes it notable (a secondary source). I'm not sure how to improve this in the article at the other place (maybe a footnote to a reference :) CYGNIS INSIGNIS 07:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeats might hold a midnight seance—but authority would be questionable. Footnotes, etc. ... I would have done well to follow your example (or a variation) when working on Childe Harold. Were I to take up Don Juan (a Repplier childhood read), I would have to rethink my reference/footnote method. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

There would be several problems with that invocation: summoning Yeats in his realm, persuading him to make a long distance call to Repplier, her being embarrassed at the ungentlemanly question and most of all, given her acerbic views on spiritualism, by actually being available to respond. There is a citation template that will transclude these transcendent references, though it has a bug (or feature) that interferes with its display when accessed by unbelievers.

I was recently pleased to discover I could link to your transcripts of Byron, and many other texts besides, causing me to be more optimistic about finding more than the first few pages of the work residing under a title. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Just received a copy of Stokes' "extensive bibliography" of Repplier's "Contributions to Periodicals" from the University of Pennsylvania Library—45 pages of handwritten notes (legible) from 1947. The list is not in any sort order. I am on page 1 and have already found some inaccuracies. I have created a spreadsheet based on the bibliography (to include links to online sources). "Extensive", but perhaps not complete. We'll see, and we'll see how far I get. Have not yet decided how/if I will add titles to Repplier's author page. It may be too oppressive. But I did come across "A Guide to Ghost Seeing; or, Every Man His Own Medium" ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Very good of them to make that available to you. If you persist with the spreadsheet it would be useful to make the your work available somewhere. It is a shame that google is not allowing me access to that article, sounds amusing. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Just found this at page 115 of the Stokes memoir: "In October 1893, Agnes Repplier wrote to Morris:

"Will you write a story— a very short biographical notice for me for Scribner's Book Buyer, to accompany my picture which I have consented to send them? You need not say civil things, and I fancy you are already in possession of the few meagre facts. Born in Philadelphia—French extraction*—(That sounds well, and excuses a great deal). Thirty-six [actually thirty-eight], last April—(This hideous detail might be softened vaguely)". CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Agnes Repplier and Robert

Thanks! I am only at p. 81. Is the bit in brackets by Repplier or added by Stokes? Do I take it she was sensitive about her age ("hideous detail")? or am I reading it wrong? The "Agnes Repplier" sketch was published in the Book Buyer in January 1894 (written by Morris). Omitted is any mention of her age, or the appearance of a picture. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh! I actually overlooked that one parenthetical remark was in square brackets, which I now see as his editorial comment (so not an admission from her). I read the 'hideous detail' of her real age as being exaggerated coyness, deployed for humorous effect, comparable to a melodramatic comment, spoken with an affected lisp, by self-caricaturing 'artistic types'. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yet another possible contradiction by sources, this time in the attribution for the accolade "Our Dean of essayists". This was the title of a piece on Repplier by Mary Ellen Chase in Commonweal (1933), as cited in a chapter of Sisterly Love: Women of Note in Pennsylvania History. I've been skimming through the memoir by her niece, which was linked from her page (by you, I presume), and that is also better than one might expect. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 09:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Another vote for 1855. I'll take it. Almost through with Stokes biography; have not yet looked at her niece's memoir, but will. Have been busy with the Repplier bibliography (spreadsheet). Turns out Stokes' bibliographic notes are extensive, but not comprehensive. It appears as though he was presented with a box/boxes of clippings/periodicals and jotted the info down as he went. Mostly Life entries—which have been helpful. Absent are most of the Atlantic Monthly and Catholic World contributions, but they are/were relatively easy to identify in online searches (my box). So, my effort may not be complete in the end, but extensive in itself. 320 entries and counting... Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably :) Are those bibliographical notes how you are finding out that some essays have different titles, or is that your own research? I had been wondering if some shorter pieces were recompiled into longer texts when published in her collections. I only discovered the unz.org site the other day, and the extensive listing of essays and reviews by Repplier, then saw that you have noted links to the site. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 03:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

With her collection essays (many of which are original to the collections and do not appear in print elsewhere), I search blocks of text to see if they pop up in periodicals online (your contributions have helped here), sometimes revealing title differences. I read somewhere that many of her short Life sketches were building blocks (there's another phrase, but it escapes me) for some of her longer essays. Smart. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to determine which Repplier collection essays are original to the collections. I am unsure as to whether Repplier essay contributions to the "The Contributor's Club" section of The Atlantic Monthly (where authors are unattributed) came before or after publication in Repplier's collections. See The Battle of the Babies in the June 1892 issue (also published in 1892 in Essays in Miniature). There are four such "Contributor's Club" listings for Repplier, and each periodical publication date coincides with the year in which it appeared in her collections. In other words, if "The Battle of the Babies" appeared first in The Atlantic Monthly, then it is not original to the collection in which it appeared. Any thoughts on which might have come first—appearance in collections or appearance in "The Contributor's Club"? Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

IMO, now that you have made me aware of it, the early success of Repplier's essays may have been due to being published without attribution. She was regarded as good, not just good considering (Aut Cæsar, aut Nihil#60et seq.). I don't recall anything in the volumes themselves being more precise than 'some essays were published in', so I'm assuming that the other essays were first published in those volumes. It is nice that you found those anonymous pieces, is that thanks to Stoke's notes or by searching on the text? And can I assume you found the cataloguing at unz.org? It might be useful to you, and you to them; I notice that your example, "Battle of the babies", is not included. I hope this is in some way helpful, though I fear it is not, if I come across something more concrete on the publishing order and other arrangements I will let you know. I noticed your bibliography subpage on RC and have been watching with interest (apologies for that, if I need to apologise for stalking my Repplier collaborator). CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Found the following: "Conceived [by William Dean Howells] as a series of short, anonymous pieces, along the line of letters to the editor, [The Contributor's Club] returned to the days when subscribers enjoyed guessing who wrote what..." Contributors were paid the same as they were for regular article submission. I discovered the anonymous pieces via text search; Stokes' bibliographic notes only mention two or three AM contributions. I used the unz.org listing initially, but followed up/confirmed the old fashioned way consulting the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature. PD copies of the Guide can be found at Hathi Trust—thankfully—for my library has no access to physical or virtual volumes. I would like to at least get my hands on RGPL volumes encompassing 1923-1950 to round out my bibliography, but that will have to wait. The shorter Life essays are not listed at unz.org nor in the RGPL, so that took some time researching (Stokes' bibliographic notes contain Life listings primarily, which were helpful, but include minor errors/some incomplete info; easy enough to correct/confirm/fill in the blanks, however, between Google Books and Hathi Trust). I would like to make the bibliographic information available either at WS or WP (an w:Agnes Repplier bibliography page perhaps)—hence my subpage document dump—but I am not sure what the most useful layout/presentation would be. A sortable table would be ideal, but a lot of work. If any ideas come to mind, I would appreciate input! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I broke my rule about putting forward personal opinions and immediately regretted it. Aside from her already being highly regarded in 1892, you have indicated that it was even left to readers to guess that it was her work. The unz.org site is selective in the periodicals it presents, according to the review I read, and I couldn't find no signs of Life content there. Searching on 'Life' presents other problems, flooding the results with other "Life, but not as we know it", and, as I said above, I am not always able to access the works through google books anyway. I had also considered whether you could create a bibliography at wikipedia, linked from a PD list here, there is more value in making it available there (IMO!). You may have to give some consideration to policies on 'original research' and so on, but I might be over-thinking it. Sortable tables are fiddly, and I don't know if the other problems they suffered from have been resolved since I last made one, but if you want to go that way I could use a text editor to apply the coding (your spreadsheet could probably be used to do the same thing). CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I did a quick search of en:wp and found a number of bibliographies about film makers (who also have 'filmographies'). There is an w:Edgar Allan Poe bibliography (FA) that I was aware of, you might look it over for ideas. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I came across WP's recommended structure for bibliographies (Naming section), and came across Mark Twain's page there. I will probably opt for that sort of structure rather than tables. I am guessing WP would not recommend linking to external sites through page numbers as I have done in my subpage bibliography, although I think it would be useful to readers. But I guess I'll tackle that adjustment later. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Linking a primary source, the essay itself, is where this gets tricky. In some ways it is distasteful, I recently noticed that someone won $10 000 for creating an article on a PD magazine with about thirty links to the site awarding the prize. The articles on Poe and Mark Twain are well supported by scholarly works, secondary sources, on their complete oeuvre. I would even be reluctant to link directly from article (or list) content to this site or archive.org, despite their principled objectives. I don't want to indicate it is this simple, or that I see a problem with what you are doing, but am concerned that, in principle, creating bibliographic content there would require some wiki-lawyering. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Not an area I am familiar with. I can cite the RGPL and Stokes' contribution for several entries. Perhaps I make my spreadsheet available to the University of Pennsylvania Libraries to include with their Repplier Papers (if they would have it) and use myself as a source? My amateur colors are showing. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

However, even Stokes' manuscript notes probably qualify as "original research" as well (being unpublished) and would not be accepted at WP as a "reliable source". His notes do contain several errors that I have identified. I'll inquire at WP and get their input. Thanks for yours. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know the what the response is. Stoke's refers to the more extensive bibliography at the end of his concise one, which is published. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I have moved the text of my bibliography to my WP sandbox (w:User:Londonjackbooks/sandbox), where I also copied and pasted my Help desk question (now archived) along with two responses. I would have liked more responses (and more detail), but they archive questions so quickly there. I'm continuing to clean up the bibliography, and when it is as complete as possible, I will post it; then the responses should roll in! Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I have written something I may send to you for criticism, but will likely wait until you return. Have started reading Repplier's niece's memoir, and may eventually add to her article at WP. Wish I had taken notes while reading Stokes' bio. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I found there was problems such as missing plates in the first file I uploaded, so I obtained another edition (Holt) to fix that. I believe I noted this everywhere I could think of, but another user (Chris55) overwrote that in places; I'm not sure what he or she had in mind when they did that. The main transclusion was complete in 2011, I'm pretty sure I had all the text and images in place, and I had another look at the end of last year. Outlier59 also noted a problem with the source tab, and I checked it all again, though I'm still not sure if what they saw as a problem is resolved to their satisfaction. Other than reverting to problematic pages (the way I had it, pre-2012), I don't know where else I can note the problem and what more I can do. Perhaps someone else will review the whole situation and provide a less confusing solution. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I see that you created the Index for the work, and I observe that it has been completed in its proofreading/validation, though not many pages are transcluded. How do you see that this will be transcluded as there is a redirect at the work name, and the work exists without validated text? — billinghurstsDrewth 06:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Continuing my slooow checking and I see that Index:The fireside sphinx.djvu is transcribed though not transcluded. If you want someone else to do it, then please ping me, and I will get to it within the week. — billinghurstsDrewth 07:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

With the exception of problematic p. 70, Sartor Resartus is proofread. Noting that there is a Gutenberg version already hosted here, I wasn't sure what your intentions were with regard to transclusion, so I will leave that to you, unless you leave instruction. I was also not sure if you intended to perform magic with the Index.

In other matters, Repplier's essay collections (in PD) are now all proofread. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Problematic p. 70 is no longer a problem. Went ahead and transcluded Index; it was begging. Hoping I have done so satisfactorily. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)